Haynes v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: May 22, 2025
• Docket: 5:25-cv-04234
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 APRIL HAYNES, Case No. 25-cv-04234-NC 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 12 WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE v. REMANDED TO STATE 13 COURT FOR LACK OF COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, SUBJECT MATTER 14 JURISDICTION Defendant. 15 Re: ECF 1 16 17 This Court orders Defendant Costco Wholesale Corporation to show cause why this 18 case should not be remanded back to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 19 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 20 Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). District courts have subject matter jurisdiction 21 through federal question or diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Diversity 22 jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy greater 23 than $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The removing party has the burden of establishing 24 that removal is proper. Lindley Contours LLC v. AAAB Fitness Holdings, Inc., 414 F. 25 App’x 62, 64 (9th Cir. 2011). 26 Here, Costco alleges that this Court has diversity jurisdiction. As such, Costco must 27 provide sufficient evidence to show by a preponderance of evidence that the amount in 1 1121-22 (9th Cir. 2013) (stating that when a state-court complaint does not clearly plead 2 || the minimum amount in controversy, the “removing defendant bears the burden of 3 || establishing, by a preponderance of evidence, that the amount in controversy exceeds the 4 || jurisdictional threshold”). Costco only alleges in its Notice of Removal that the amount in 5 || controversy threshold is satisfied because “Plaintiff’s counsel is unwilling to stipulate that 6 || the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000.” ECF 1 at 3. However, “attempting 7 || to force the plaintiff to enter a stipulation regarding the potential amount of damages 8 || would serve no effect in determining the actual amount in controversy at the time of 9 || removal” since a defect in subject matter jurisdiction cannot be stipulated to or waived. 10 || Conrad Assocs. v. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co., 994 F. Supp. 1196, 1199 (N.D. Cal. 1998). 11 || Thus, Plaintiff Haynes’s refusal to stipulate is irrelevant in determining the amount in 12 || controversy. Costco does not provide any other facts or arguments to support its 13 || contention that the amount in controversy in this case exceeds $75,000. The Court C 14 || therefore cannot find that it has diversity jurisdiction. 3 15 Accordingly, Defendant Costco must show cause in writing by June 5, 2025, why 16 || this case should not be remanded back to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

1g

19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 || Dated: May 22, 2025 he ———— _ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28